Talk:Historical migration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

There is nothing about why this happened, though.


This article talks endlessly about the complicated pattern of Indo-European migrations, and barely (if hardly at all) even mentions human settling of the rest of the world.

Contents

[edit] Horrible Title

Doesn't anyone think this should be PRE-historic migration, or something along those lines?

The title appears confusing and not obviously distinct from Human migration. The word "history" can be used in the general sense to include prehistory. A more well-defined article title may be "History of human migration" or "Timeline of human migration" (as in Timeline of human evolution). Shawnc 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it very definitely should be HISTORIC migration as it is. There is another Wikipedia page with excellent detail on EARLY HUMAN MIGRATION, i.e. prehistoric. The real problem is that the first section has no business on this page. "Historic" generally implies time periods sense the development of written records, even if other tools, like archeology, are also useful. "Pre-historic" studies examine events exclusively through forensics because no historic records are available. So this entire article should only address the migrations that have occurred since the dawn of written history, leaving the other migrations to the early human migration article. A tricky issue would be where the case of major migrations should be discussed if there was no written record of the migrations, but they clearly occurred after many or most other civilizations had developed writing, for instance the Polynesian migrations. I would suggest that to avoid too much confusion, those migrations knowable only through archaeological, linguistic and genetic studies should be covered in the early human migrations article and those migrations knowable from records should be discussed in this article, historic migration. A final quandary arises from migrations related to civilizations that clearly had records, but whose records are not decipherable. I would argue that they should remain in the early migrations article until such time as we are able to decipher them. If a decipherment of the Harappan script answers questions about the Indo-Aryan migration or of Linear A answers questions about the early peoples of the east Mediterranean, then those would be moved into the historic article only at that time. Just a suggestion. Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The maps of early migrations

I can't see the reason for a lot of the dates in these maps. While it is true that the order of the divergence in the genetical markers can be statistically defined and rreasonably accurate, the timing of these divergences is not very accurate (as more data is acquired the accuracy gets better, i guess). Maybe a map just with the arrows would be better? The later migrations seriously challenge these models, too, and the subject will be under research for a long time. Additionally, the maps are not in all places in accordance with the National geographic map (which I guess should be somewhat better verified). Add to that, I'm not for the deletion, but the maps on this subject should be marked as models, always, until somesort of consensus is reached. 91.153.56.195 04:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history stops in early modern times???

Why does it stop with early modern times?

I cannot see how that is justified, since the amount of large-distance migrations has increased greatly since then, reaching peaks at the turn of the twentieth century and just now.
Moreover, I believe a text on this existed half a year ago (I contributed to that...) It seems to have been deleted without a comment here... strange... Tam 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map request

 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

A map for the section "Medieval and Early Modern Europe" would be helpful. -- Beland 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Expanded detail on American colonization

The previous commentary on the settlement of the English colonies of North America in the colonization section was both inadequate and incorrect. It previously stated that the state controlled migration during the 17th century and religiously motivated migration increased during the 18th century. The opposite is the case. The major haven for religious dissidents in the English colonies, the New England colonies beginning with those that evolved into Massachusetts, saw the bulk of migration during the 1630s with periodic waves thereafter. This had everything to do with the conflict between these people, mostly Puritans, and the High Anglican Stuart monarchs. Once the monarchy was overthrown in 1648, and a Puritan dictatorship set up in England through the 1650s, the level of migration tapered off. Only to pick up again after the Stuarts were restored and then really take off when the unpopular James II came to the throne. The so-called Glorious Revolution settled the religious question amicably enough for most parties, but William III staged a major power grab in the colonies after intervening in conflicts with the Algonquins in the northeastern colonies and helping to put down the related Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. This much detail wasn't necessary in the main article here, but the point is that the facts were quite opposite of those stated, at least for England. And England was the major source of emigration to the Americas with a colonial population of Europeans in the New World that exceeded those of the other major players. The Spanish came to conquer, the French to trade, but the English came to stay, resulting in a very different type of colony. This much detail on the English colonies in North America might seem unwarranted if they were not so significant for the future history of the world.Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)